Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/26/2021

Home

stated that a floodplain also comes through a portion of the backyards in this area, along with the wetland setback and drainage and utility easement. Mr. Cuevas commented that the shed is small, movable, allows water flow as it is on legs, and could be moved if access is needed for the easement. He stated that if access is needed he could move the shed with a 24 hour notice. He stated that he spoke with his neighbors and none of them expressed concern. He noted that he even purchased a few bushes for the neighbor to help buffer the shed. He stated that he would be open to compromise but does not feel that placing the shed in the center of his backyard would be a good location as it would not be aesthetically pleasing and would make the backyard unusable. He asked that the Commission consider his request for a variance. Commissioner VanScoy asked why the applicant is reluctant to move the shed. Mr. Cuevas replied that they have a small backyard area that has a swing set for their children and therefore there is not much usable space if the shed is added to that area. He stated that the current shed location is not harming anyone and it is in a good location. He commented that if moved he would need to move irrigation and also would not want to disrupt the mature trees that he planted. He commented that he was unaware a building permit would be needed as this structure was prebuilt. Commissioner Walker commented that he visited the property today and did not believe the overhead views provide an accurate representation of how small the backyard is. He stated that the applicant planted some trees and from the road you only see the top of the shed. Commissioner Peters asked if the applicant reached out to a member of City staff when he was unable to find information on the website. Mr. Cuevas stated that he called and spoke with a staff member but did not mention the shed itself. He noted that his discussion centered on the restrictions within the wetland buffer and he was told that the wetland buffer had been retracted. Commissioner Peters commented that perhaps it would have been more effective to mention the shed during that discussion. Amber Cuevas, applicant, stated that they were told that the shed would affect how staff could get into the easement. She noted that there are trees directly behind the shed and therefore staff would most likely choose to go to the right of the shed to get access. Debra Musgrove, 15427 Fluorine Street, asked for clarification is the shed is on or over the property line. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl commented that all properties require a six foot side yard setback and this shed is located at the property line. She noted that the issue of the drainage and utility easement would not be an issue of the Commission. Planning Commission/ July 22, 2021 Page 5 of 22